Skip to comments.Bush supports traditional marriage definition in issuing Marriage Protection proclamation
Posted on 10/06/2003 6:14:45 PM PDT by truthandlife
President Bush has proclaimed Oct. 12-18 as Marriage Protection Week, calling the institution's preservation "essential to the continued strength of our society."
The president issued the proclamation Oct. 3, one day after a coalition of 25 evangelical Christian and conservative organizations announced a campaign to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The effort, campaign leaders said, will begin with Marriage Protection Week and will work toward passage of a constitutional amendment to preserve the biblical and traditional definition of the institution.
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other organizations formed the coalition in response to a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that could set the stage for homosexual unions. It also developed in anticipation of a possible ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court deciding there is a right in the state constitution for homosexuals to marry. A decision in that case is expected any day.
In his proclamation, Bush said, "Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.
"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents."
Bush cited elimination of the marriage tax penalty, rewarding marriage in welfare reform and a healthy marriage initiative as examples of his administration's efforts to strengthen the institution. Bush has not endorsed a constitutional amendment to define marriage.
While he did not mention same-sex "marriage," Bush received criticism for his proclamation from the country's largest homosexual rights political organization.
"It is reprehensible for a president who claims to be compassionate to pander to a coalition of extremist groups by joining their assault on gay families," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign. "The American people want to see politicians in Washington concentrating on the real threats to our families -- an unstable economy, high unemployment rates and uncertainty in Iraq -- not guaranteeing that same-sex couples are left without more than 1,000 rights, responsibilities and protections under federal law."
ERLC President Richard Land, however, said at the Oct. 2 news conference that the movement in the courts to legalize same-sex "marriage" is an "assault on the most basic foundational institution of society.
"This is an absolutely critical moment and juncture in the history of our society, our nation," Land said. "The same-sex 'marriage' movement ... is the poster child issue ... for the titanic struggle that is going on in our society between those who believe in a Judeo-Christian basis for our culture and those who believe in a neo-pagan, relativist base for our culture."
Among other organizations in what is dubbed the "Coalition to Protect Marriage" are: Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, Prison Fellowship, the National Religious Broadcasters, Home School Legal Defense Fund, Samaritan's Purse, World magazine and Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va.
The ERLC and other organizations are asking pastors to preach on marriage Oct. 12. The ERLC also is encouraging Southern Baptists to contact their members of Congress about supporting a constitutional amendment. The ERLC has a resolution on its Internet site (www.faithandfamily.com) that churches and other groups can endorse as part of Marriage Protection Week activities.
In a 6-3 ruling June 26, the Supreme Court struck down laws against sodomy in Texas and 12 other states. Critics of the opinion said the reasoning in the court's opinion may open the door for other concessions to homosexual rights advocates.
Supporters of a constitutional amendment face an uphill battle to gain ratification. It requires approval by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.
The only proposal introduced so far is the Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J.Res. 56. That amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents."......"
If that doesn't keep him from getting re-elected, I'm sure he'll come up with something else.......
Maybe some additional police powers added to his "Patriot's Act"?
Last National election I voted a straight Republican ticket to get the democraps out. This time I'll vote to clean house again.
(and it won't be a straight Republican ticket)
There, that's better....
"Gay families"???? What the he!! is a "gay family"?
It was one thing when the gays demanded the federal government stay out of their bedrooms ---- but what they demand now is the federal government bless their unions, but it's the benefits they're really after.
Yes ma'am. And think of the precedents it would set: If both partners needn't be of the opposite sex, must they both be adults? Must they both be mentally sound? After all, if you marry a child or retarded person, they are covered by your benefits, so you're really doing them a favor, see? And in other cultures they marry children, who are we to criticize? And some religions allow polygamy, if we can set the gay precedent, why not the polygamy precedent? And does it absolutely have to be about love? Why can't you marry an illegal immigrant for money, several of them, and they come on board for protection and citizenship. And once you have 5 or 6 people dependent upon the government or a private business for health care, through your job that is, if you -- the sponsor -- get fired, imagine how many people in your network of unions will be hurt? We must make it harder to fire people! We must have ever more security.
Eventually we can have these network unions of various unrelated people, relatives, lovers, children, immigrant hangers-on all sucking on government and industry till they dry it up. Then we'll have to raise taxes.... Oh yeah, I can see the future. And it isn't pretty.